Mike Rivington

Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review

The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.

Uncertainty in agricultural impact assessment

This chapter considers issues concerning uncertainty associated with modeling and its use within agricultural impact assessments. Information about uncertainty is important for those who develop assessment methods, since that information indicates the need for, and the possibility of, improvement of the methods and databases. Such information also allows one to compare alternative methods. Information about the sources of uncertainties is an aid in prioritizing further work on the impact assessment method. Uncertainty information is also necessary for those who apply assessment methods, e.g., for projecting climate change impacts on agricultural production and for stakeholders who want to use the results as part of a decision-making process (e.g., for adaptation planning). For them, uncertainty information indicates the degree of confidence they can place in the simulated results. Quantification of uncertainty also provides stakeholders with an important guideline for making decisions that are robust across the known uncertainties. Thus, uncertainty information is important for any decision based on impact assessment. Ultimately, we are interested in knowledge about uncertainty so that information can be used to achieve positive outcomes from agricultural modeling and impact assessment.

Tropical wetland ecosystem service assessments in East Africa; A review of approaches and challenges

Abstract East African wetlands are hotspots of ecosystem services, particularly for climate regulation, water provision and food production. We review the ability of current approaches to ecosystem service assessments to capture important social-ecological dynamics to provide insight for wetland management and human wellbeing. We synthesise evidence of human influences on wetlands and gauge the suitability of models and tools for simulating spatial and temporal dynamics, and land management on multiple ecosystem functions and services. Current approaches are largely unsuitable for advancing knowledge of social-ecological system dynamics and could be greatly improved with inter-disciplinary model integration to focus upon interactions between multiple ecosystem functions and services. Modelling can alleviate challenges that tropical wetland ecosystem services management faces and support decision-making of land managers and policymakers. Better understanding of social-ecological systems dynamics is crucial in East Africa where societies are vulnerable to poverty and climate variability, whilst dependent upon agrarian-ecological based economies.